Ok, we all get the point there are many different ways to accomplish the
same thing, to allow an address to post to the list without receiving the
postings.

1) Explicitly Named Send rights!
* SEND = XXXXX@XXXXXX

2) Quiet Owners!
* OWNER= XXXXXXX@XXXXXXXX
* QUIET:
* OWNER= XXXXXXX@XXXXXXXX

3) Set the address to no mail!

4) * EDITOR= XXXXXX@XXXXXXXX

5) And the classic, use someone elses address, who has send rights, to mask
yourself and send to a non-moderated list with their address!

All of these are viable options that each work and have their own merits
and situations in which they might be used.  I got carried away with it
yesturday because I was told that my option (#2) wouldn't work when in fact
it does.  The admin got the solution that was right for her and it seems to
suit her fine.



At 10:20 AM 9/8/99 PDT, you wrote:
>On Tue, 7 Sep 1999 11:01:48 -0400, KEVIN MCKENZIE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> Make them what is called a QUIET Owner. They can post but cannot read.
>> Here is what the header will look like.
>>
>> * Owner= [log in to unmask] Laura
>> * QUIET:
>> * Owner= [log in to unmask] Kevin McKenzie
>> * Owner= [log in to unmask]
>>
>> Anything listed with an owner tag below the QUIET tag is considered a quiet
>> owner, and can send to the list but not receive the postings.  We do this
>> quiet often for peopel people who have multiple accounts to send from but
>> only need to recevie mail at one account.
>
>If the person is not a 'subscriber', he/she will not receive messages.
>If the person is a subscriber, but is defined as 'NOMAIL',
>then he/she will not receive messages.
>
>If the mailing-list is defined as 'SEND=PUBLIC',
>then anybody can post to the list, even a non-subscriber.
>If the mailing-list is defined as 'SEND=PRIVATE',
>then only subscribers & editors & owners can post to the list.
>
>
>However, from a 'S E C U R I T Y' point-of view,
>are you sure(!) that you want to grant 'OWNER' privileges to them,
>i.e., the ability to update the header, to, for example,
>remove the string 'Owner= [log in to unmask],
>and to insert their own ID as the "primary" owner?
>
>Granting 'EDITOR' privileges will allow them to "post",
>but will not allow them to "modify" the list-definition.
>To me, that sounds more secure.
>
>